Forecourt foresight

The rising oil price is encouraging development of low-carbon vehicles, but the tipping point from petrol to electric power still seems far off.

It’s not a bad time to be in the oil industry. Is it ever? BP’s oil spillage problems aside, the industry executives could be forgiven for popping the champagne corks. Buoyed on the swelling tide of recent oil price increases, the hydrocarbon majors have seen recent profits rise to unprecendented levels; and there’s every sign that the celebrations could carry on into the next quarter.

But if rising oil prices mean broad grins in the oil industry and grimaces for anyone who has to buy oil-derived products, they mean something else for the automotive sector: they’re the most powerful spur for development of low-carbon vehicles. New models are appearing weekly, such as GM’s range-extended vehicle, which it plans to sell in the UK as the Vauxhall Ampera; Toyota and EDF have a trial of plug-in hybrid cars in Strasbourg, complete with charging-point infrastructure, as we reported here.

Even McLaren, hardly the world’s leading proponent of carbon reduction, is in on the act. Launching the sports car producer McLaren Automotive, company figurehead Ron Dennis dropped broad hints that hybrid power is under consideration for its new supercars, which are already designed to be 100 per cent recyclable.

Whether this is a concern to oil companies is actually a moot point. Whenever they’re confronted about rising petrol prices, they inevitably respond that they make very little money from petrol sales; retail margins are low, they claim, and their income is much more dependent on industrial sales of refinery products. Which doesn’t explain the regular price hikes we see on the forecourts.

How high do oil prices have to go to generate a substantial switch to electric cars? The car industry now seems to believe that the switch is coming, but they haven’t yet come up with a product that truly grabs the imagination and makes sense to the bank balance; even the iconic Toyota Prius is only as efficient as a well-designed diesel. There’s still some work to be done to convince buyers over issues such as range anxiety and speed of recharging; and the hydrogen economy, which would see a switch from petrol power to fuel cells, is as far off as ever.

We’re sure that the future of transport is electric, rather than hydrocarbon. Exactly when that future will come is a matter of guesswork as much as informed prediction. We’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

Visit the UK’s dedicated jobsite for engineering professionals. Each month, we’ll bring you hundreds of the latest roles from across the industry.

I like electric vehicles although I can see distinct disadvantages. We have a projected problem providing enough green energy capacity even to safeguard the future at the non-vehicle consumption rate – what is going to happen when we all plug our electric vehicles into the house mains at night to charge the batteries which incidentally took a great deal of resource to manufacture and with the disposal problems still not addressed? How is electricity generated? Through burning fossil fuels in the main, or nuclear along with the waste concerns that creates? The other factor is that if anyone thinks that electric vehicles are are going to save us money – think again. The cash strapped government isn’t going to give up on the lovely tax personal transport generates, so there will be substitute fuel taxation (whatever form that takes – including electricity) for transport use.
I remember last time they encouraged LPG as a cheap alternative to petrol in the 80’s – it started cheap until the infrastructure was developed, then it was taxed to the hilt and the advantage was lost and subsequently went out of favour.
Surely the best use of scientific effort should be spent in the direction of creating alternative methods of propulsion along with alternative methods of producing clean fuels?

Until electric or hybrid cars are cheaper to buy than standard cars the switch will not happen. A recent ad for the renault electric car showed it as being approx £8000 more than its petrol alternative.
Also another wory is that whathappens if the battery pack needs replacing or an electric drive needs to be replaced, we have seen no indication of cost for the replacement of these items. A further point is that if like me you have to park your vehicle some distance from your house how are you going to recharge your vehicle as there is no infrastructure to facilitate it, and I assume the electricity suppliers would then charge a householder meg money to run the necessary cables to a sutable charging point.

As a country we need to think very long and hard about what the alternatives to fossil fueled cars will be, especially as government regularly says we are approaching a time when we will not have the capacity to supply all of our energy needs.

Hybrid cars are a step forward in the right direction and the issues on environmental friendly electicity generation will be solved in line with the development and run out of these vehicles. This is based on the proven adage “neccessity is the mother of invention”. Other means of propulsion will also be developed in time. However, in the meanwhile, what to do about the fuel consumption and emissions producing current vehicles? Readers may like to know that there is a proven fuel treatment available that makes hydrocarbons burn more completely resulting in lower consumption and emissions. I have used such a treatment for over 5 years and regularly record 2-3 miles more per litre of petrol with near zero emissions. That is more than 90 extra miles per tank full. It is possible to reduce the impact of existing fuel consumption in vehicles and in the home/industry with a rapid payback.

When will people see that we are just being dragged along by a big “green” gravy train. If the goverments of the world really wanted to do anything they would have every available body out fitting wind turbines, solar panels etc. to every home and business in the land. Call me a bit mad but we will only get the whole transport emmissions problem sorted when someone seriously starts some work on some form of transporter beam – otherwise prepare for little or no change or to get back on a horse.

“they encouraged LPG as a cheap alternative to petrol in the 80’s – it started cheap until the infrastructure was developed, then it was taxed to the hilt”

I currently pay £0.57/litre for LPG making this a very economic choice.

When calculating the carbon footprint of any given vehicle it seems that the amount of energy consumed during its construction is often overlooked. Is there not a case for enforcing better maintainence of our existing vehicle stock and extending the economic life of a vehicle?

How about more stingent emissions requirements for older vehicles combined with a £2000 scrappage tax?

The exponential rise in vehicle numbers world over running on hydrocarbons is an alarming issue. However one feels automobile industry is in no mood to look at the diminishing resources. Price hike of petroleom fuels infact helps car sales under garb of producing more efficient automobiles.
Infact automobile industry would not change its perceptions of a future without petrol or diesel. They seem to be obvlious to this fact that hydrocarbons will not regenerate but dwindle one day.
Electricity from renewable sources may be an answere but who wants to produce cheap cars working on electricity. This may not support big investments and overheads of auto manufacturers. So make hay while the sun shines seems to be the motto of auto giants.
Hybrids are marketing lip-service of a kind. It is like something needs to be done and ultimately gets done half-heartedly because it does not feed their bottom lines.

Quoting selected figures for electric cars is wrong, what about their practicalities and limitations in the real world. I can fill my company car with diesel and drive at motorway or other speed limits for 700 miles before refuelling. This then takes minutes.

Electric vehicles are fine for a very limited segment of the market, and are only a very small fraction of 1% of the total vehicles sold because they are not practical for the majority of users. Our infrastructure is not in place to service electric vehicles, and they have a massive range of other problems.

Look at the alternatives, who is prepared to install charging stations and pay for them, what about the safety implications of multiple charging leads trailing across rights of way. Then we have the criminal element who will steal the leads for the scrap copper, and undoubtedly fly tip the remains.
Charging stations which replace discharged batteries are another thought, again who will pay for them, and will local authorities allow them to be built as they discharge significant gases during charging.

Imagine the scenario, you pay for a new electric vehicle, your battery is brand new, you swap it for a fully charged battery at a charging station. The replacement is 5 years old and becomes faulty during a trip, whose responsibility is it, and who pays for your vehicle recovery. Most people will baulk at the thought of such scenario’s, particularly when their vehicles new battery is replaced with an old one.

Everyone seems to forget that most emissions (80%) are produced during manufacturing and disposal of a vehicle, a much easier target for environmental efficiency.

The purely electric vehicle is only suitable for certain inner city uses. The industry is still hoping for technological breakthroughs to make practical electric cars for longer journeys. Therefore at present the electric car can only be one of two cars owned by a household, and the charging problem is far from solved as others have pointed out. The hydro-carbon-fuelled series hybrid (the Prius is a parallel hybrid), or its close relative, the range-extended vehicle, are the way forward for the time being. These technologies can roughly halve fuel consumption in mixed driving, and save 20-30% on long trips.

It will be difficult to convince the auto companies to change their ways without a stick and carrot approach from the government. Think how much revenue they will lose when the only servicable items on an electric car are the tyres and brakes. No oil, filters or plugs/injectors to replace. Electric brushless motors have very long life times with only bearings to wear out. With the current generation of LiFePo4 batteries achieving a 1000 cycles before losing 20% capacity. The old auto companies don’t want you to have this technology but eventually you will and you will spend a lot less money on your car. Just look at the model radio control hobby industry that has been changed over from IC to Electric very quickly in the US.

Please can Trevor Best tell us what he uses to gain his fuel efficency claim, as he dosnt say:

Quote: I have used such a treatment for over 5 years and regularly record 2-3 miles more per litre of petrol with near zero emissions. That is more than 90 extra miles per tank full. It is possible to reduce the impact of existing fuel consumption in vehicles and in the home/industry with a rapid payback.

Have a battery powered car, so designed that in place of the radiator used on an organic powered vehicle (diesel or petrol to you) you fill the space with a small wind turbine.

The installedbattery is used to start the vehicle. Once the vehicle is moving the wind turbine kicks in producing power to propel the vehicle and the excess power produced goes to re-charging the battery.

Solved. No pollution from the vehicle even indirectly from the power station down the line. No mains cables stretched across the driveway overnight.
No theft of the cables for their valuable copper content.

Of course some bright spark will pull this to pieces, but the concept is sound even though the technology may not be available today.

Andy, I use a magnetic influence installed externally on the fuel pipe that has been in existence since 1993 and proven in thousands of installations on all engines from cars through heavy vehicles to boat engines. The process is patented and more details are available on trevor.best@virgin.net

Harold M. Like the idea – not unlike Sam Loovers car from Joe 90. In theory it ran a small internal combustion engine but once up to speed ran from wind turbines built into the rear spoiler. Actually now I think about it why hasnt some one tried it – the idea has been around since the late 60s at least!

The car with wind turbines attached to generate power from the forward motion of the car would be a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, contradicting the first law of thermodynamics, sorry, can’t be done ! (Yes, I was taught at Bristol by both Rogers and Mayhew)

I find it amazing to see the same arguments being made over and over again when this topic pops up. The fact remains, that until there is a viable alternative to hydrocarbons the oil industry will continue to hold us to ransom. Regardless of how efficient current hybrid cars and diesels become all the oil giants have to do is keep raising the price of oil to keep their greed based profit margins high. We have an answer to their greed that’s already available in some regard and that’s a biodiesel hybrid power train. I think if the car manufactures are really serious about keeping their countries (and mind you their respective businesses) in business is by strongly promoting biodiesel electric as a viable alternative to the fuel cell until that develops sufficiently for the masses.

I’ll not be offended if someone wishes to correct me on this as I have a passing interest in the subject but am by no means an expert.

I seem to remember a documentary on the death of the electric car that pointed to the efforts of the car manufacturers in ensuring it to be unsuccessful. After sales maintenance and repairs are minimal (i.e. no need for fuel/air filters, spark plugs, exhaust systems, alternators etc), which it claimed is where a much larger source of income than the initial sale of the car depends. Added to that the effect on service centres, motor spares manufacturers, retailers and other vested interests, then there is an entrenched economic dependance on the lifecycle of these consumables. I think the same reasoning lay behind the death of the ‘everlasting’ incandescant bulb.

It will probably take continued regulation before the car manufacturers can be brought into line. However most politicians have a very limited effective timespan in office, whereas the lobbyists have all the time in the world to exert their influence.